{"id":89199,"date":"2009-05-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-22T04:41:36","modified_gmt":"2017-09-21T23:11:36","slug":"g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRP.No. 417 of 2009(D)\n\n\n1. G. JESUDASAN, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SASTHAMCOTTA CO-OPERATIVE\n\n3. THE PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR, THE\n\n4. N. SREEDHARAN, MEMBER NO. A.0018642,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\n\n Dated :26\/05\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n         THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.\n\n  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n       R.P.417\/2009 in W.P.(C).31536\/2008-D\n\n  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n        Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009.\n\n                     O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                                         “CR”\n<\/p>\n
1.Review    petitioner    filed     WP(C).31536\/2008<\/p>\n
 challenging   an  order    of  supersession  under<\/p>\n
 Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
 Act, 1969, hereinafter, the “Act”, for short.<\/p>\n
 That writ petition was allowed by judgment dated<\/p>\n
 12.3.2009, 2009(2) ILR Kerala 323, on the sole<\/p>\n
 ground that the decision impugned therein was<\/p>\n
 rendered by an officer other than the one who<\/p>\n
 heard the committee which was superseded thereby.<\/p>\n
 It was clarified even in that judgment that no<\/p>\n
 other grounds are dealt with and that this Court<\/p>\n
 has not gone into the merits or demerits of the<\/p>\n
 allegations  or  the  objections   stated  by  the<\/p>\n
 committee to the allegations made against it.<\/p>\n
RP417\/09               -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
2.This   review petition      is filed  by the writ<\/p>\n
  petitioner on two grounds.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.Firstly, it is contended that though this Court<\/p>\n
  noticed the writ petitioner’s contention that the<\/p>\n
  first respondent was duty bound to proceed under<\/p>\n
  Rule 66(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
  Rules, 1969 rather than take action under Section<\/p>\n
  32 even in the light of Section 65(6) of the Act,<\/p>\n
  that plea has not been considered.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.The aforesaid plea is one that could be raised in<\/p>\n
  opposition to a notice under Section 32. Having<\/p>\n
  left open all issues relatable to the merits of<\/p>\n
  the matter, there was no need for this Court to<\/p>\n
  consider the issue relatable to that plea of the<\/p>\n
  petitioner.  Such   plea      in  defence to  the<\/p>\n
  supersession proceedings also stands left open by<\/p>\n
  the judgment sought to be reviewed. There is,<\/p>\n
  therefore, no error apparent on the face of the<\/p>\n
  record, in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
RP417\/09               -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
5.The   second ground   raised    seeking  review is<\/p>\n
  that, it having been held that proceedings under<\/p>\n
  Section 32 is quasi judicial and the person who<\/p>\n
  heard the parties ought to pass the order, it<\/p>\n
  ought   to  have  been     further  held  that the<\/p>\n
  proceedings are vitiated from its very inception;<\/p>\n
  that is, from the very drawing up and issuance of<\/p>\n
  the pre-decisional notice. It is argued on behalf<\/p>\n
  of   the petitioner  that    the  Registrar  is “a<\/p>\n
  person” in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act. The<\/p>\n
  plea is that the word “person” means a particular<\/p>\n
  individual  and   cannot,     therefore, take  the<\/p>\n
  concept of an institution and the formulation<\/p>\n
  of opinion to act under Section 32 ought to be by<\/p>\n
  one   person and  the     same  individual  has to<\/p>\n
  decide on the objections raised.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.Sub-section 2 of Section 3 provides that the<\/p>\n
  Government may by general or special order confer<\/p>\n
  on any person all or any of the powers of the<\/p>\n
  Registrar under the Act. Therefore, once the<\/p>\n
  power of the Registrar is conferred by general or<\/p>\n
RP417\/09               -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  special order, all such persons on whom such<\/p>\n
  power is conferred, exercise the powers of the<\/p>\n
  Registrar, which includes the power to initiate<\/p>\n
  action in terms of Section 32 of the Act. The<\/p>\n
  question, therefore, would be only as to whether<\/p>\n
  the formulation of an opinion for the purpose of<\/p>\n
  issuing  a  pre-decisional     notice on  specified<\/p>\n
  grounds relatable to Section 32(1) could be done<\/p>\n
  by one person and the rendition of the decision<\/p>\n
  following such consideration could be done by yet<\/p>\n
  another. Pertinently, it needs to be noted that<\/p>\n
  the judgment sought to be reviewed is rendered on<\/p>\n
  the fundamental principle that in instances of<\/p>\n
  hearings which involve live questions of sifting,<\/p>\n
  weighing and appreciation of evidence tendered,<\/p>\n
  the lis has to be decided by the person who heard<\/p>\n
  the arguments. This is all the more so because,<\/p>\n
  such a decision-making process, as noticed in<\/p>\n
  paragraph  18  of  the      judgment sought to  be<\/p>\n
  reviewed following Marico Industries Ltd., 2003<\/p>\n
  (1) KLT 956, is not a decision exclusively of the<\/p>\n
  head or heart and it has to be one of both. The<\/p>\n
RP417\/09               -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  process of arriving at the satisfaction that the<\/p>\n
  committee has conducted itself in any among the<\/p>\n
  manners enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-<\/p>\n
  section 1 of Section 32 need not necessarily lead<\/p>\n
  to the conclusion that it, without fail, has to<\/p>\n
  be superseded. This is why, while the Registrar<\/p>\n
  is conferred with the authority to supersede<\/p>\n
  without  pre-decisional     hearing,  the  committee<\/p>\n
  could  be   given   the     opportunity   to   state<\/p>\n
  objections against the proposed supersession. In<\/p>\n
  cases where the Registrar proceeds to give an<\/p>\n
  opportunity  of  pre-decisional     hearing to  the<\/p>\n
  committee to state its objections, he cannot then<\/p>\n
  start the hearing with any pre-conceived notion<\/p>\n
  as to the guilt of the committee as regards the<\/p>\n
  allegations made against it. It is an essential<\/p>\n
  feature  of   fair   play,     inbuilt   among  the<\/p>\n
  fundamentals of natural justice, that bias in any<\/p>\n
  form, including subject matter bias or any pre-<\/p>\n
  conceived determination or opinion, ought not to<\/p>\n
  weigh with the authority who hears. If it does,<\/p>\n
  that  will  result  in     forking  the  process  of<\/p>\n
RP417\/09              -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  assimilation of the defence tendered. This would,<\/p>\n
  undoubtedly, taint the judicious mind of the<\/p>\n
  adjudicator. In matters relating to Section 32,<\/p>\n
  when a committee states its objections and is<\/p>\n
  given an opportunity of hearing, law would not<\/p>\n
  presume that the Registrar hears the objections<\/p>\n
  after having concluded for himself, to supersede.<\/p>\n
  This, therefore, shows that in cases where a<\/p>\n
  notice is given affording opportunity to state<\/p>\n
  objections, the formulation of the “satisfaction”<\/p>\n
  by the Registrar comes to a standstill and the<\/p>\n
  application of mind by the person who hears the<\/p>\n
  committee  on   its    objections,  namely,  the<\/p>\n
  Registrar, would start, untrammelled by whatever<\/p>\n
  conclusion or satisfaction was arrived at before<\/p>\n
  issuing the notice. Therefore, the person who<\/p>\n
  hears  and  considers     the objections of  the<\/p>\n
  committee  does  not    get  tied  down  to  the<\/p>\n
  conclusions or satisfaction arrived at before<\/p>\n
  issuing the notice giving opportunity to the<\/p>\n
  committee to state its objections. Hence, in<\/p>\n
  cases where opportunity to state objections is<\/p>\n
RP417\/09              -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  given, it is unnecessary that the same person who<\/p>\n
  was satisfied that any among the grounds in<\/p>\n
  clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section 1 of Section 32<\/p>\n
  exists   and  had   issued   the  notice   giving<\/p>\n
  opportunity  to  the    committee to  state   its<\/p>\n
  objections, should himself hear the committee on<\/p>\n
  its objections; or as a necessary corollary, the<\/p>\n
  entire proceedings call for being rendered void<\/p>\n
  necessitating a person exercising the powers of<\/p>\n
  the Registrar to start the exercise de novo from<\/p>\n
  the stage of consideration of the files even<\/p>\n
  before issuing any notice giving opportunity to<\/p>\n
  the committee to state objections. It was hence<\/p>\n
  that it was stated in the last paragraph of the<\/p>\n
  judgment sought to be reviewed that the first<\/p>\n
  respondent could proceed with hearing de novo<\/p>\n
  following a notice that may be issued to those<\/p>\n
  entitled to be heard and the proceedings shall<\/p>\n
  commence from the state at which the parties<\/p>\n
  stood on the date of issuance of notice that led<\/p>\n
  to    the   hearing   of    the  petitioner   by<\/p>\n
  Sri.Omanakuttan (the officer who passed the order<\/p>\n
RP417\/09               -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
  that was impugned in the writ petition).<\/p>\n
  For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any<\/p>\n
  error apparent on the face of the record or any<\/p>\n
  other ground warranting review of judgment under<\/p>\n
  Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The<\/p>\n
  review petition fails. The same is accordingly<\/p>\n
  dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                       THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
\n                                  JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Sha\/250509<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP.No. 417 of 2009(D) 1. G. JESUDASAN, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF … Petitioner Vs 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE … Respondent 2. THE SASTHAMCOTTA CO-OPERATIVE 3. THE PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR, THE 4. N. SREEDHARAN, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-89199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-21T23:11:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-21T23:11:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1184,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009\",\"name\":\"G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-21T23:11:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-21T23:11:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-21T23:11:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009"},"wordCount":1184,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009","name":"G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-21T23:11:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-jesudasan-vs-joint-registrar-of-co-operative-on-26-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G. Jesudasan vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 26 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=89199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}